Re: [patch,fix, PING] PR21875 Internal Array IO and NIST final fix

[Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at verizon dot net>]

Erik Zeek wrote:
> On Wed September 14 2005 10:33 am, Jerry DeLisle wrote:
>
> > > The only surprising bit is this:
> > > +   if (*len < 0)  /* This should never happen */
> > > +     *len = 0;
> > > +
> > > So if it never happens, why have it?
> >
> > I put that in there to flag out an issue in review (which it has).
> > There was a point where len was actually going negative and causing a
> > segfault.  I put that there to catch that condition long enough for me
> > to see what was happening to fix it.
> >
> > Its sort of a policy question.  Leaving it may prevent a future segfault
> > if something starts going wrong again.  It would allow us to see bad
> > output rather than a segfault.  Other than that, there is no need.  I
> > will take it out.
> >
> > With these changes I assume that it is OK to commit to 4.0 after
> > retesting.
Typo above, should have been 4.1

> Why not issue an error or warning if len is negative?  If you had problems 
> with it, another developer might as well (and not realize exactly where 
> the problems is).
>
> Erik

Good point, but gets back to a philosophy question.  (I am talking myself 
through this.)  It seems any value or pointer could go wrong from future bugs, 
so is this one special other than I saw it go south before.

I think I will take it out and double check that its not doing that anymore and 
add a comment for future reference.  Down the road developers will see the 
comment and know to check it.

Does that seem reasonable?

Jerry